Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

lazygal

fran17 wrote: »

What a sad,regressive poster.The insulting claim that if you do not agree with repealing the 8th amendment,wishing to protect the lives of unborn children,you are not a kind human!Also "Jess" has quite the baby bump protruding,by now her unborn son/daughter would have advanced brain,heart,spinal cord and organ development.Also arms and legs with little fingers and toes and he/she would be capable of feeling pain.
But I'm sure the repeal campaign would be kind humans and allow for the child to be anesthetised prior to the abortion,as is practised in some of the countries they "aspire" to become...

Your right to informed consent ends when you're pregnant in Ireland. The eighth amendment affects all maternity care, it isn't solely about abortion. Do you think pregnant women shouldn't have the right to informed consent in Ireland?

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

No, he just needs a seat while on the Luas because of his < ahem > condition.

You're really comparing being drunk with being pregnant?
That's actually pathetic.

Do you also think drunk people should get priority over the elderly and disabled or do you just have a problem with women?

aloyisious

Cheers to the enterprising person who saw the chance for a bit of ad-hoc script-work on a Transport For Ireland / Luas poster.

Hotblack Desiato

fran17 wrote: »

The insulting claim that if you do not agree with repealing the 8th amendment,wishing to protect the lives of unborn children,you are not a kind human!

Forced pregnancy and treating a grown woman as of no more value than a clump of cells is not being a kind human, no.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Your right to informed consent ends when you're pregnant in Ireland. The eighth amendment affects all maternity care, it isn't solely about abortion. Do you think pregnant women shouldn't have the right to informed consent in Ireland?

That's not true though, is it? I mean, I know Rainbow Kirby offered pretty much the same assertion a little while ago, and failed to provide any evidence that patients have any right to informed consent. It's actually a general rule that medical or surgical procedures may not be carried out without the informed consent of the patient. That rule is based on the fact that if a person carries out medical or surgical procedures without consent, he/she could be charged with the crime of assault; a crime which the right to life of a foetus certainly doesn't obviate.
"Good medical practice in seeking informed consent to treatment" is a good document from the Irish medical council which describes best practice on the subject. Clearly pregnant women are consulted on their treatment, they are given relevant information and are as entitled to refuse treatment (on being informed decline to give consent) for themselves as anyone else is. So the notion that a pregnant woman has any less of a 'right to informed consent' than anyone else is really nonsense.

Some people, perhaps, confuse a 'right to informed consent' with a facility to make medical decisions on their own behalf. That's obviously a trickier subject, since those decisions could harm someone else; the foetus they're carrying. Medical practitioners have an obligation to care for both, an obligation which certainly stems from the 8th, and that obligation can mean they cannot agree to implement a decision by one patient which would kill another, by and large.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Forced pregnancy and treating a grown woman as of no more value than a clump of cells is not being a kind human, no.

Giving a pregnant lady your seat on the Luas is being a kind human though, regardless of how little you think of the person she's carrying. It's nice to be nice

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

You're really comparing being drunk with being pregnant? That's actually pathetic. Do you also think drunk people should get priority over the elderly and disabled or do you just have a problem with women?

Maybe recedite is just saying that any less abled person should receive a little more consideration from us than we might generally give otherwise, even if it's only letting them sit on our seat?

fran17

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Forced pregnancy and treating a grown woman as of no more value than a clump of cells is not being a kind human, no.

This non sequitur appears to be the prime wedge that Colm O Gorman and the repeal advocates are using in an attempt to fracture the Irish constitution with.To me its so wrongheaded and sad.The ultimate goal here is to introduce full unrestricted abortion to this country and nobody should be in any doubt about this.The arguments foundation is that the unborn child is not recognised as human life and so is undeserving of the right to life.I don't accept this for numerous reasons,one of the main reasons being something called morality.

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

This non sequitur appears to be the prime wedge that Colm O Gorman and the repeal advocates are using in an attempt to fracture the Irish constitution with.To me its so wrongheaded and sad.The ultimate goal here is to introduce full unrestricted abortion to this country and nobody should be in any doubt about this.The arguments foundation is that the unborn child is not recognised as human life and so is undeserving of the right to life.I don't accept this for numerous reasons,one of the main reasons being something called morality.

http://www.wlrfm.com/shows/4-deise-am-with-billy-mccarthy/4094-brave-waterford-woman-speaks-about-losing-her-daughter-to-fatal-foetal-abnormalities.html

Any chance you could listen to this interview and say whether you think this woman is wrongheaded and why you know better than her what was best for her family?

Or is it just that real people's lived experiences don't matter in comparison to the value you place on your personal ideology being forced on everyone else?

Anyone else who is against repealing the 8th is f course welcome to do the same.

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

http://www.wlrfm.com/shows/4-deise-am-with-billy-mccarthy/4094-brave-waterford-woman-speaks-about-losing-her-daughter-to-fatal-foetal-abnormalities.html

Any chance you could listen to this interview and say whether you think this woman is wrongheaded and why you know better than her what was best for her family?

Or is it just that real people's lived experiences don't matter in comparison to the value you place on your personal ideology being forced on everyone else?

Anyone else who is against repealing the 8th is f course welcome to do the same.

Firstly,I would appreciate it if you did not misconstrue my words to suit your argument.I did not say that the case of the lady in the audio or her family was wrongheaded,I asserted that the argument being put forwarded regarding a woman being "of no more value than a clump of cells" if access to abortion is denied has little basis in reality.Any case regarding the issue of fatal foetal abnormalities is of course terribly sad and heart wrenching and there is no easy answers to such a traumatic situation.I am thankful everyday that my family or anyone I know did not have to deal with such a tragedy.
On the claim of my "personal ideology being forced on everyone else",well that is just fallacious.Though even one case of fatal foetal abnormality or pregnancy resulting from rape is truly tragic you must remember that they account for a very small percentage of the total figure.2011 statistics tell us that of a total of 74,033 births there was 36 tragic cases of abortion due to fatal foetal abnormalities.90 pregnancies resulted from rape,of which 60 of the pregnancies were taken to term with only 17 being aborted.The media claimed that some 1200 cases of fatal foetal abnormalities per year were diagnosed at the time which was scurrilous and shameful.I believe those figures show that your claim is actually inverted.
I believe any law should represent and be in the interest of all the citizens of a nation,born or unborn,and abortion is not something a nation should aspire to in dealing with unplanned pregnancies in the 21st century.Poland is a shinning light regarding this issue,after the defeat of atheistic communism and the inspiration of Pope John Paul II they look to be on course to reverse abortion laws.Russia are also on course to saving the unborn after atheistic communism was also defeated.Children are not guilty of any crimes and to impose the possibility of a death sentence upon them is not something I would condone.

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

Firstly,I would appreciate it if you did not misconstrue my words to suit your argument.I did not say that the case of the lady in the audio or her family was wrongheaded,I asserted that the argument being put forwarded regarding a woman being "of no more value than a clump of cells" if access to abortion is denied has little basis in reality.Any case regarding the issue of fatal foetal abnormalities is of course terribly sad and heart wrenching and there is no easy answers to such a traumatic situation.I am thankful everyday that my family or anyone I know did not have to deal with such a tragedy.
On the claim of my "personal ideology being forced on everyone else",well that is just fallacious.Though even one case of fatal foetal abnormality or pregnancy resulting from rape is truly tragic you must remember that they account for a very small percentage of the total figure.2011 statistics tell us that of a total of 74,033 births there was 36 tragic cases of abortion due to fatal foetal abnormalities.90 pregnancies resulted from rape,of which 60 of the pregnancies were taken to term with only 17 being aborted.The media claimed that some 1200 cases of fatal foetal abnormalities per year were diagnosed at the time which was scurrilous and shameful.I believe those figures show that your claim is actually inverted.
I believe any law should represent and be in the interest of all the citizens of a nation,born or unborn,and abortion is not something a nation should aspire to in dealing with unplanned pregnancies in the 21st century.Poland is a shinning light regarding this issue,after the defeat of atheistic communism and the inspiration of Pope John Paul II they look to be on course to reverse abortion laws.Russia are also on course to saving the unborn after atheistic communism was also defeated.Children are not guilty of any crimes and to impose the possibility of a death sentence upon them is not something I would condone.

Ok I'm sorry if I went further than you meant it. In my defence I was offended by your comments above about anesthesia being required. Do you think babies who miscarry at the same stage of pregnancy as an abortion suffer? Nobody ever suggests giving them anaesthesia, do they? Why is that?

Did you actually listen to the interview? If so, do you agree with the woman herself that an induction when she first got the diagnosis (which she could have had if she'd lived in the UK) compared to an induction some weeks later after the baby had died inside her would have changed nothing for anyone else, but would have relieved both her and her entire family, and possibly even her unborn baby too of a huge amount of suffering?

Giacomo McGubbin

Cabaal wrote: »

As kind humans, let's encourage jess that she should kill her child

PopePalpatine

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

As kind humans, let's encourage jess that she should kill her child

Where's her child? I don't see any children with her in the picture.

aloyisious

fran17 wrote: »

This non sequitur appears to be the prime wedge that Colm O Gorman and the repeal advocates are using in an attempt to fracture the Irish constitution with.To me its so wrongheaded and sad.The ultimate goal here is to introduce full unrestricted abortion to this country and nobody should be in any doubt about this.The arguments foundation is that the unborn child is not recognised as human life and so is undeserving of the right to life.I don't accept this for numerous reasons,one of the main reasons being something called morality.

@ fran17 AND Giacomo McGubbin: Just out of curiousity, are you in favour of allowing limited abortion within the legal parameters of POLDPA in order to save a woman's life, or would your moral viewpoint on abortion incline you to oppose a life-saving abortion operation for her?

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Where's her child? I don't see any children with her in the picture.

The text above her head says she's pregnant though; so regardless of what you see in the picture she is assuredly with child. That may be an uncomfortable expression for a particular point of view, but it's hardly odd, she herself or her partner might well say she is carrying their child without anyone looking further than the evident bump in the picture. Certainly some people seem to feel manipulating language to try and remove one of the people from the discussion would suit them, but common usage, as well as law in Ireland, has for some time fallen on the side of acknowledging the presence of a child I'm afraid.

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

Ok I'm sorry if I went further than you meant it. In my defence I was offended by your comments above about anesthesia being required. Do you think babies who miscarry at the same stage of pregnancy as an abortion suffer? Nobody ever suggests giving them anaesthesia, do they? Why is that?

Did you actually listen to the interview? If so, do you agree with the woman herself that an induction when she first got the diagnosis (which she could have had if she'd lived in the UK) compared to an induction some weeks later after the baby had died inside her would have changed nothing for anyone else, but would have relieved both her and her entire family, and possibly even her unborn baby too of a huge amount of suffering?

I can fully understand that this has always been,and will always be,a hugely emotive topic.I'm not wishing to offend anybody regarding the use of the term anesthesia when discussing abortion but it would be wrong to omit it from the discussion.The unborn child can feel pain from as early as 8 weeks,the ultimate goal of the repeal campaign is for full unrestricted abortion in Ireland so this subject is very much debateable.The cesspool that is the USA have introduced the "foetal pain abortion law" recently.Amnesty international,who only a few years ago changed their stance on abortion,promote full unrestricted abortion and they are at the coalface here.Knowing that unborn children feel pain and suffering,is anesthesia something you feel should be offered to mothers if abortion became available in Ireland?
Yes I listened to the audio and it was terribly sad as all would agree.The one thing that stood out for me was the grave failings of the state in relation to this lady and her situation.The facilities and counselling must be made available in these situations.Life and nature can be horribly cruel at times and that was one of those occasions but that little girl lived,if only briefly,inside her mother and then passed away peacefully.To her and her family this was of course devastating but it accounts for a very small percentage of cases each year and to remove the right to life of all unborn child from our constitution on this basis would be wrong,in my opinion,and devastating for thousands of healthy unborn children,their fathers,families and society as a whole.I'll say again,abortion is not something we should aspire to in relation to human life and unplanned pregnancies in the 21st century.

fran17

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Where's her child? I don't see any children with her in the picture.

One of the most amoral postings I've ever read.I don't believe anyone here would be corrupt enough to concur with that.

Giacomo McGubbin

fran17 wrote: »

One of the most amoral postings I've ever read.I don't believe anyone here would be corrupt enough to concur with that.

It's called the big lie to conceal the taking of another human life, and has the desire that if you repeat it often enough, people will come to accept it as "good".

PopePalpatine

Of course, it's not like there are any "big lies" from anti-choicers to violate a pregnant rape victim's bodily autonomy for a further 9 months. :rolleyes:

Giacomo McGubbin

Why stigmatise the victim further, and tell them in order for them to be socially acceptable to you, they must in turn become the abuser and take another innocent human life for something they didn't do ?

PopePalpatine

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Why stigmatise the victim further, and tell them in order for them to be socially acceptable to you, they must in turn become the abuser and take another innocent human life for something they didn't do?

Jesus Christ...where did I say they must have an abortion? I just want them to have the choice to have one if their health is threatened by the pregnancy or if they've become pregnant as a result of rape.

smacl

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

As kind humans, let's encourage jess that she should kill her child

Maybe lets just let Jess make her own decisions. Or do you seriously believe that you or the Pope have any right to interfere with her life?

fran17

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Of course, it's not like there are any "big lies" from anti-choicers to violate a pregnant rape victim's bodily autonomy for a further 9 months. :rolleyes:

Oh dear,giving the time frame of your last posting I had partially hoped you were in some way inebriated but sadly I was wrong."Anti-choicers",so I assume if we felt the desire to reduce ourselves to your level we could call you "Pro-death"?

Giacomo McGubbin

smacl wrote: »

Maybe lets just let Jess make her own decisions. Or do you seriously believe that you or the Pope have any right to interfere with her life?

This is your first thought for being pro abortion and justifying it ? Your obsession with religion ?
Why are you bringing religion into this ? It's irrelevant.
Do you think abortion should be supported on the grounds it happens to contradict certain religions moral codes ? What has religion got to do with honestly recognising and respecting another human life and not taking it ? How did you come to the conclusion that only the religious are capable of honestly recognising and respecting vulnerable and defenseless human life ? I don't need religion to disagree with the view that it that's ok to take another human life just as long as some other people refuse to recognise another as being worthy of human life, and they perceive it personally advantageous to take that life. Are you claiming that the many atheists that are anti-abortion, cannot be anti-abortion on simply the grounds of honestly recognising and respecting innocent and defensiveness human life ? Or should they, in order to be 'true' atheists go along with the de-humanising of another human life in order to promote the taking of it for perceived personal advantage ?

fran17

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

It's called the big lie to conceal the taking of another human life, and has the desire that if you repeat it often enough, people will come to accept it as "good".

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" Vladimir Lenin.

Of course Lenin and his despots,of which atheism played a large role in their philosophy and legitimising their crimes,were the first to legalise abortion.

PopePalpatine

Yep, all of us pro-choicers and secularists here are really lizard people communists in disguise, waiting to impose our godless lives on all of the believers. :rolleyes:

Giacomo McGubbin

fran17 wrote: »

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" Vladimir Lenin.

Of course Lenin and his despots,of which atheism played a large role in their philosophy and legitimising their crimes,were the first to legalise abortion.

You can use anything for good or bad. An atheist is simply someone with a lack of belief. After that anything an atheist has in common with other atheists should be incidental. Remember an atheist does not have to be anti-pro life or anti anything else and many are not. Granted, some weaker minded atheists are often manipulated into thinking that they should.

Loafing Oaf

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

This is your first thought for being pro abortion and justifying it ? Your obsession with religion ?
Why are you bringing religion into this ?

Because the 8th Amendment was effectively crowbarred into the constitution by the Catholic Church. Our current abortion regime cannot be understood without an appreciation of the dominant position of the Church in Irish society until very recently...

smacl

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

This is your first thought for being pro abortion and justifying it ?

No, this is my considered opinion as being pro-choice for a number of decades. The bizarre notion that a freshly implanted foetus is actually a person in my experience is one typically held by those who have been indoctrinated with this belief as part of their religious upbringing. Most people other than those with strong religious convictions, or those taught by them, would consider people as being able think, having consciousness, sentience, and / or self awareness. All of these attributes require a working brain of some kind, so the notion that aborting a foetus that has yet to develop any kind of a brain is killing someone is untrue. The Vatican for example considers the use of the morning after pill to constitute abortion, where even very few staunch Irish Catholics would concur with this view.

Perhaps to clarify your own stance, you could state unambiguously what exactly you consider person is, and from that, what is it that makes them a person?[/QUOTE]

Giacomo McGubbin

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Because the 8th Amendment was effectively crowbarred into the constitution by the Catholic Church. Our current abortion regime cannot be understood without an appreciation of the dominant position of the Church in Irish society until very recently...

So again, you think supporting abortion is actually all about anti religion and anti-constitution, rather than considering the fundamental right to human life, and without religion and constitutions someone cannot / should not respect it ? There's me thinking abortion was about abortion.